coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in the town of Konstantynivka, the Donetsk region, Ukraine.
5.  On 22 December 1997 the Kostyantynivskyi Town Court ordered the Avtosklo State Company to pay the applicant UAH 2,462 (406 euros – “EUR”) in salary arrears.
6.  On 15 January 1998 the Kostyantynivskyi Town Bailiffs' Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the above judgment.
7.  On 22 June 1998 the Donetsk Regional Arbitration Court instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor.
8.  On 18 February 2002 the debtor was declared bankrupt and the liquidation proceedings were initiated against it.
9.  On 6 February 2003 and 23 February 2004 the applicant was informed by two letters from the Bailiffs' Service that the judgment in his favour was not enforced due to the substantial number of enforcement proceedings against the debtor and the latter's lack of funds. The applicant was also informed that the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to the debtor was blocked by the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property of 29 November 2001.
10.  The judgment of 22 December 1997 remains unenforced.
11.  In March 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Kostyantynivskyi Town Court against the Avtosklo State Company seeking compensation for the delay in payment of the judgment debt of 22 December 1997.
12.  On 29 March 1999 the court found against the applicant. On 17 May 1999 the Donetsk Regional Court upheld the decision of the first instance court.
4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in the city of Lysychansk, the Lugansk region, Ukraine.
5.  On 20 April 2001 the Lysychansk City Court ordered the Melnikova State Mine to pay the applicant UAH 3,727.39 (around EUR 488) in salary arrears.
6.  On 3 May 2001 the Lysychansk City Bailiffs' Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the above judgment.
7.  On 4 March 2002 the Bailiff's Service informed the applicant that the Mine's property has been under a tax lien since 1998 and it lacked funds to pay the judgment debt.
8.  On 30 May 2003 the Lugansk Regional Commercial Court initiated bankruptcy proceedings against the Mine.
9.  According to the Government, on 28 November 2003 the sum awarded by the judgment at issue was transferred to the applicant's bank account.
10.  According to the applicant, he received that amount on 15 December 2003.
11.  On 1 December 2003 the Bailiffs' Service discontinued the enforcement proceedings on the ground that the judgment of the Lysychansk City Court of 20 April 2001 had been enforced in full.
4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in the town of Lisichansk, the Lugansk region.
5.  In 1982 the applicant had a serious accident at work and from that time onwards was entitled to occupational disability benefit – including compensation for a purchase of a car designed for disabled persons – from the Chernomorka coal mine (a State owned entity, hereafter “the Coal Mine”).
6.  On 11 June 2001 the Lisichansk City Court awarded the applicant UAH 14,490 (approximately EUR 2,360) against the Coal Mine for its failure to pay compensation for a car.
7.  The judgment became effective and was sent for execution to the Lysychansk City Bailiffs' Service (hereafter “the Bailiffs' Service”), which on 14 July 2001 instituted enforcement proceedings in the applicant's case.
8.  On 12 November 2001 the Lisichansk City Court informed the applicant that the attachment and sale proceedings concerning the Coal Mine's assets were suspended due to the moratorium on the forced sale of the property of State-owned enterprises.
9.  On 29 November 2001 the Ministry of Fuel and Energy ordered the Coal Mine's liquidation, designating the Ukrvuglrestrukrutizatsyya Company as its successor. The coal mine's liquidation commission was established and on 18 February 2002 it was entrusted with the enforcement of the applicant's writ of execution.
10.  On 5 June 2003 the Ministry of Fuel and Energy ordered that the Ukrvuglrestrukrutizatsyya Company split up and its funds be divided between the Luganskuglrestrukrutizatsyya and the Donetskvuglrestrukrutizatsyya Companies.
11.  On 15 April 2004 the writ of execution was returned unenforced to the Bailiffs' Service, which reopened the enforcement proceedings. On account of the liquidation of the coal mine and the Ukrvuglrestrukrutizatsyya Company the Bailiffs' Service on 6 July 2004 suspended the proceedings pending the replacement of the debtor in the applicant's case.
12.  From the parties' submissions it appears that the judgment in the applicant's favour remains unenforced.
4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Jarocin.
5.  On 20 April 1993 the applicant lodged a petition for a divorce with the Poznań Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki).
6.  The Poznań Regional Court held hearings on 24 August and 7 October 1993, 13 January and 26 April 1994.
7.  On 1 June 1994 the court ordered an expert opinion. It was submitted to the court on 29 August 1994.
8.  Further hearings were held on 15 November 1994, 7 February 1995, 25 April 1995, 10 August 1995, 7 November 1995 and 16 May 1996.
9.  On 5 June 1996 the applicant specified his claim and accepted that custody rights be granted to his wife.
10.  On 13 September 1996 the court ordered fresh expert evidence. The court requested the Department of Psychology of the Poznań University to expedite the preparation of the opinion on the applicant's child's emotional development.
11.  On 21 January 1997 the hearing was adjourned, in order to give the experts more time to prepare the opinion.
12.  On 24 January 1997 the court requested the Psychology Department to send back the case file and to submit the opinion. The file was sent back on 21 March 1997; however, no opinion was submitted.
13.  On 21 April 1997 the applicant complained to the Ministry of Justice about the length of the proceedings. On 3 June 1997 the Ministry of Justice examined the facts and considered that the applicant's complaint was justified.
14.  The court held further hearings on 26 June 1997, 23 July 1997, 18 September 1997, 24 November 1997, 26 January 1998, 16 March 1998, 20 April 1998, 8 June 1998 and 13 July 1998.
15.  On 26 August 1998 the applicant sent another letter to the Ministry of Justice complaining about the length of the proceedings. In September 1998 the case was put under the administrative supervision of the Ministry of Justice.
16.  The Department of Psychology of the Poznań University failed to submit the relevant expert opinion. As a consequence, the court ordered a new expert opinion on 6 October 1998.
17.  On 4 December 1998, upon the applicant's further complaint, the Ombudsman examined the case and considered the complaint justified. The Ombudsman requested the President of the Poznań Regional Court to take the necessary steps to accelerate the proceedings.
18.  On 22 February 1999 and 8 March 1999 the court held hearings.
19.  On 22 March 1999 the Poznań Regional Court gave judgment and dissolved the applicant's marriage. The court awarded parental rights to both parents and ordered that the child's permanent residence be with the applicant.
20.  Both parties to the proceedings appealed. On 5 November 1999 the Poznań Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals and upheld the first-instance judgment. The judgment was served on the applicant on 7 January 2000.
4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in the village of Krichka, the Ivano-Frankivs'k region of Ukraine.
5.  In 1987 the applicant's family was placed on the waiting list to receive an apartment from the State. By 1990 the applicant was first on the housing list. Nevertheless, the Executive Committee of the Dzvinyach Village Council, by a decision of 12 October 1990, gave an available apartment to another person. The applicant instituted proceedings in the Ivano-Frankivs'k Regional Court against the executive committee of the Village Council, challenging its decision.
6.  On 30 August 1991, the Ivano-Frankivs'k Regional Court found for the applicant and ordered the Village Council to assign the disputed apartment to the applicant. On 30 October 1991, the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the decision of the Regional Court.
7.  In 1996, as the judgment in her favour remained unenforced, the applicant requested the Bogorodchansky District Court to change the manner of enforcement and to order the Village Council to build her a house. On 7 October 1996, the court satisfied the applicant's request and changed the manner of execution accordingly.
8.  In 1997, as the judgment was still unenforced, the applicant requested the same district court to change the manner of execution again and to award her the pecuniary equivalent of the disputed apartment. On 16 June 1997, the Bogorodchansky District Court satisfied the applicant's request and awarded her UAH 29,600[1] in compensation.
9.  On 28 December 2000, the Head of the Bogorodchansky District Department of the State Bailiffs' Service issued an order to freeze all the current bank accounts of the Village Council in order to secure the payment of the judgment debt in the applicant's favour.
10.  On 26 January 2001, the Dzvinyach Village Council challenged the order of 28 December 2000 in the Bogorodchansky District Court. The enforcement proceedings were accordingly suspended.
11.  On 12 February 2001, the Bogorodchansky District Court found in part for the Village Council and quashed the order of the Bailiffs' Service with respect to two principal accounts containing the budget funds for social payments, salaries, etc. By the same decision the court allowed the other accounts of the debtor to be frozen.
12.  The applicant lodged a protest with the Deputy Chairman of the Ivano-Frankivs'k Regional Court to challenge this decision. The Deputy Chairman rejected her protest by his letter of 20 April 2001. On 8 October 2001, the panel of three judges of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant's request for leave to appeal under the new cassation procedure.
13.  On 21 November 2002 the court decision of 16 June 1997 was enforced in full and the Bailiffs ended the enforcement proceedings.
4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in the town of Novogrodivka, the Donetsk region of Ukraine.
5.  In 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodivka Town Court against the “Novogrodivska” Mining Company - a State-owned enterprise - to recover unpaid salary.
6.  On 21 July 1999 the Novogrodivka Town Court found in favour of the applicant (рішення Новогродівського міського суду Донецької області) and awarded him UAH 2,567.06[1] in salary arrears and compensation for delay in their payment. The decision was not appealed and became final.
7.  On 5 August 1999 the Novogrodivka Town Bailiffs' Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Новогродівського міського управління юстиції) initiated enforcement proceedings. However, the decision was not executed.
8.  In June 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodivka Town Court against the Bailiffs' Service for failure to execute the court decision in his favour. On 7 July 2000 the court found for the applicant and ordered the Bailiffs' Service to enforce the judgment of 21 July 1999. Nevertheless, the latter remained unenforced until 2 July 2003, when it was finally executed.
4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in the city of Novovolynsk, the Volyn region, Ukraine.
5.  On 2 August 2000 the applicant suffered an industrial injury and lost 80% of his capacity to work.
6.  On 30 January 2002 the Novovolynsk City Court ordered the Novovolynska State Mine (the “Mine”) to pay the applicant UAH 65,767.80[1] in compensation for the applicant's occupational disability. By the same decision, the court ordered the Novovolynsk Department of the Social Security Fund to pay the applicant a lump sum of UAH 2,301.30[2] and a monthly allowance of UAH 615.05[3] for a period of one year in compensation for loss of earnings.
7.  On 22 March 2002 the Novovolynsk City Bailiffs' Service instituted enforcement proceedings against the Mine.
8.  On 18 April 2002 the Bailiff's Service informed the applicant that the judgment was not enforced due to a large number of enforcement proceedings against the Mine and its lack of funds. The Bailiffs also informed her that the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to the debtor was blocked by the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property of 29 November 2001.
9.  In 2002 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Novovolynsk City Court about the inactivity of the Head of the Bailiffs' Service in respect of the enforcement of the judgment at issue. On 26 November 2002 the court found for the applicant, declared the Bailiffs' Service's inactivity unlawful and ordered its Head to carry out supervision of the enforcement of the judgment by the Bailiffs' Service.
10.  On 27 December 2002, 24 March, 15 August and 19 December 2003 the applicant was paid a total of UAH 3,200[4] in the course of the enforcement of the award against the Mine.
11.  On 28 January 2004 the sum of UAH 58,917.80[5] was transferred to the applicant's bank account, out of which the applicant's bank deducted a fee of UAH 589.04[6].
12.  On 26 March, 28 April and 17 June 2004 the applicant received UAH 2,550[7], UAH 900[8] and UAH 200[9], respectively.
13.  On 17 June 2004 the Bailiffs' Service discontinued the enforcement proceedings on the ground that the judgment of the Novovolynsk City Court of 30 January 2002 in the part concerning the award against the Mine had been enforced in full.
14.  The applicant did not challenge the decision of the Bailiffs' Service of 17 June 2004 before the domestic courts.
4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Ivanec Zaprešički, Croatia.
5.  On 4 December 1992 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking non-pecuniary damages for injuries he had suffered in a traffic accident.
6.  On 29 October 1997 the Zagreb Municipal Court gave judgment awarding part of the damages sought.
7.  On appeal, on 9 February 1999 the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case.
8.  In the resumed proceedings, the court held two hearings and gave another judgment on 18 March 2002. It again awarded part of the damages sought. The judgment was served on the applicant on 30 July 2002.
9.  Meanwhile, on 5 July 2002 the applicant filed a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske), complaining about the length of the proceedings. On 7 November 2002 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s complaint inadmissible, since the Municipal Court had given its judgment in the case.
10.  On the respondent’s appeal, on 17 December 2002 the Zagreb County Court again quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case.
11.  In the resumed proceedings, the court held two hearings and concluded the main hearing on 13 May 2004. However, since the presiding judge had been dismissed from office, the main hearing was reopened and, subsequently, a judgment given on 16 December 2004.
12.  The proceedings are currently pending before the Zagreb County Court, following an appeal against the above judgment.
4.  The applicant is a Russian national, born in 1959 and living in the Perm Region.
5.  By a first instance judgment of 24 October 1997 the Perm Regional Court sentenced the applicant to nineteen years’ imprisonment for murder and rape. On 19 February 1998 the judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court and came into force.
6.  On 20 January 1999 the Regional Court reversed the conviction by reference to newly discovered circumstances and remitted the case for a fresh investigation to a prosecutor. On 8 February 1999 the prosecutor took a decision fully to acquit the applicant.
7.  Thereafter the applicant brought court proceedings against the State, claiming damages for the wrongful conviction and unlawful detention for twenty months.
8.  On 20 July 2001 the Lysva Town Court of the Perm Region examined and granted his action. The court took account of the circumstances of the criminal proceedings against the applicant and his conviction, including total length of his remand in custody which was of one year, eight months and twenty one days, and related after-effects, such as personal anxiety, anguish and feeling of isolation. The applicant was awarded RUR 70,000 (~2,740 euros) in damages to be paid by the Ministry of Finance.
9.  On 11 September 2001 the decision was upheld by the Perm Regional Court and came into force.
10.  On an unspecified date the applicant obtained an execution writ and forwarded it, together with supporting documents, to the bailiffs’ service. By two letters of 30 March and 21 May 2001 the bailiffs refused to institute enforcement proceedings and returned the writ and documents to the applicant. They stated, in particular, that under the legislation in force execution writs issued against the State should be submitted directly to the Ministry of Finance (see the relevant domestic law section below).
11.  The applicant followed the instruction and applied to the said Ministry. Upon receipt of the documents on 13 November 2001, the Ministry discovered that the address and details of the debtor in the writ had been mistaken. By a letter of 2 June 2002 the Ministry returned the documents to the applicant.
12.  Having obtained an amended writ from the court, on 3 October 2002 the applicant re-submitted the documents. They reached the Ministry on 11 October 2002. By a letter of 4 June 2003 the Ministry informed the applicant that the new writ was invalid in that it did not contain a submission period and again returned him the documents.
13.  On 20 June 2003 the applicant sent off the documents and 15 October 2003 the Ministry of Finance transferred him the money due pursuant to the decisions of 20 July and 11 September 2001.
10.  The applicants were born in 1966, 1973 and 1971 respectively and live in Diyarbakır.
11.  The first and the third applicant are lawyers. The first and the second applicants were members of the Human Rights Association and the third applicant was the president of the HADEP Diyarbakır provincial headquarters at the time of the events.
12.  Following information received by the gendarmes that there was a meeting related to the PKK in the provincial headquarters of the HADEP (Halkın Demokrasi Partisi-People’s Democracy Party) and the Diyarbakır branch of the Human Rights Association, the police officers at the Diyarbakır Security Directorate, after receiving authorisation from the Diyarbakır Governor’s Office and a search warrant from the judge at the State Security Court upon the request of the public prosecutor at that Court on 27 February 1995, conducted a search on the premises and arrested the applicants together with eleven other persons.
13.  On 27 February 1995 the applicants were handed over to the gendarmes at the Diyarbakır Provincial Gendarmerie Command.
14.  According to the report drafted by the gendarmerie on 28 February 1995, at the HADEP headquarters, the police seized eight ERNK (National Liberation Front of Kurdistan) and PKK flags, a PKK emblem, sixty-five books and nine VHS videotapes about the PKK, seven audio tapes and documents addressed to the Secretary General of the European Parliament. They also found a pistol on one of the suspects.
15.  On 9 March 1995 the applicants were brought before the public prosecutor and the State Security Court. The latter ordered their remand in custody.
16.  On 22 March 1995 the public prosecutor at the State Security Court filed an indictment with the latter accusing the applicants and the other suspects of having made propaganda on behalf of the PKK. He requested that the applicants and other detainees be convicted and sentenced for membership of an illegal organisation under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code.
17.  On 1 May 1995 the State Security Court, taking into account the charges and the evidence against the applicants, ordered their release pending trial.
18.  On 8 April 1996 the State Security Court acquitted the applicants of all charges. It held that the materials found in the search could have been placed there by anyone and that apart from their statements in custody, which the applicants claimed to have given under duress, there was no evidence to convict them.
19.  On 16 April 1997 the Court of Cassation upheld the aforementioned judgment.
20.  On 26 November 1997 the first applicant filed a petition with the Diyarbakır Assize Court under Law no. 466 pertaining to the payment of compensation to persons unlawfully arrested or detained. On 30 December 1997 the Diyarbakır Assize Court awarded the applicant an amount of compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage to compensate the periods he spent in detention. This decision was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 29 September 1998.
4.  The applicant company is a joint stock company with its seat in Pakrac, Croatia.
5.  On 21 and 23 August 1991 the Croatian police requisitioned several vehicles belonging to the applicant company.
6.  In March 1995 the applicant company instituted civil proceedings in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia. It based its claim on section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act.
7.  On 6 November 1999 Parliament introduced amendments to the Civil Obligations Act (“the 1999 Amendments”). The amended legislation provided that all proceedings for damages against the State for the acts of members of the Croatian Army and the police in the performance of their official duties during the Homeland War in Croatia were to be stayed.
8.  On 21 January 2000 the Zagreb Municipal Court stayed the proceedings pursuant to the above legislation.
9.  On 14 July 2003 Parliament passed new legislation on the liability of the State for damage caused by members of the Croatian Army and police in the performance of their official duties during the Homeland War (“the 2003 Liability Act”).
10.The proceedings resumed on 5 November 2003 and are still pending.
4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Zagreb.
5.  In 1982 the applicant, together with her relative A.M, purchased a flat in Crikvenica. The purchase agreement did not contain any provision on the shares of ownership of the flat.
6.  On 23 May 1989 A.M. instituted civil proceedings before the Crikvenica Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Crikvenici) seeking declaration of her ownership of two-thirds of the flat. On 29 October 1989 the applicant filed a counterclaim, seeking declaration that she was the owner of seven-eighths of the flat.
7.  Following two remittals, on 18 June 1996 the Crikvenica Municipal Court ruled that A.M. was the owner of three-fifths and the applicant of two-fifths of the flat.
8.  On appeal, on 8 October 1997 the Rijeka County Court (Županijski sud u Rijeci) upheld the first-instance judgment.
9.  On 20 October 1998 the applicant filed an appeal on points of law (revizija) against the County Court’s judgment. On 4 April 2002 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) dismissed her appeal as ill-founded. The decision was served on the applicant on 13 September 2002.